Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3 (2): 330-338

Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2012 (ISSN: 2141-7016)

jeteas.scholarlinkresearch.org
Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2):330-338 (ISSN: 2141-7016)

Analyses of Fractures Orientations of Ekpeshi Dolomite Deposit,

South-West, Nigeria
1

Ajibade Z.F and 2Olaleye, B.M

1
Department of Petroleum Engineering,
Petroleum Training Institute, Effurun- Warri, Nigeria.
2
Department of Mining Engineering,
The Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria.
Corresponding Author: Olaleye, B.M
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Fractures orientations analyses were carried out on two faces tagged face 1 and face 2 at dolomite deposit
quarry in Ekpeshi, Nigeria. Two joint sets were identified. Kinematic analyses carried out with the aid of DIPS
software show different types of failure. Face 1 of Ekpeshi quarry is susceptible to wedge failure while toppling
failure is not a threat on this face. Face 2 of Ekpeshi dolomite is partly under the threat of plane failure. There
is no possibility of wedge failure on this face. Also there is no threat of toppling failure on the dolomite face 2. It
was observed from the analyses that little attention was paid to relationship between cut face and fracture
orientation in the case study area. Although there was no tension crack which could have aggravated slope
failures, however the toes of the slope were heavily flooded; this situation may reduce friction between fracture
surfaces and aid sliding. It was concluded and recommended that fractures orientations analyses should always
be carried out to determine the proper orientation of cut face in relation to fracture orientation. Also there
should be proper drainage at the toes of the slope to prevent percolation which might reduce friction between
discontinuities surfaces so as not to turn profitable mines to loss and to minimize if not prevented, failures that
can be dangerous to both personnel and equipment.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: fracture, kinematic analysis, dolomite deposit, stability
__________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
A rock mass is only as strong as the weaknesses that
it contains (Hoek and Bray, 1981). Those
weaknesses, called discontinuities, must be carefully
mapped and analyzed in order to predict the stability
of blocks within the rock mass. Fracture often
determines the response of rock mass in relation to
engineering projects since they often mark the
weakest part of rock mass and also governs or
controls stability of slopes and underground
excavations (Flavio, 2001).
Dolomite production in Nigeria is a major source of
raw materials for paint and toothpaste productions;
and a host of other products. For a mine to produce
profitably and safely, collapse and failure of mine
faces should be predictive and controlled as much as
possible. Hence, it is justifiable to analyse the facture
orientation of the deposit. Ekpeshi is located in
Akoko-Edo local government area of Edo-State in
South West, Nigeria. The Precambrian basement
complex in Igarra is made up of a metasupracrustl
suite comprising of quartzite, quartz-chists,
metaconglomerates, marble and calc-silicate rocks.
Within this area is the Igarra schist belt, (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Geological and Location map of Ekpeshi,
Edo State, Nigeria

330

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2):330-338 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
A detailed study (Odeyemi, 1988), shows that the
said schist belt can be classified into four groups
namely:
(a) Quartz biotite shcist with interacted quartzpebble conglomerate;
(b) Calc-silicate gneiss and marble;
(c) Polymict metaconglomerate; and
(d) Phyllites metaconglomerate

dip and azimuth components were not considered.

Multimodal circular statistics gives better portrayal of
fracture orientation. (Nam, 2004)
Circular Data Presentation
In circular statistics, data are wrapped around a circle,
resulting in different statistical distributions and
measurement. Circular data range from 00 to 3600
(Fisher, 1993) Azimuth angle runs between 0 0 and
1800 while dip angle ranges between 00 and 900. The
use of circular data is important for accurate
characterisation by avoiding observational bias. For
example, two directions angles of 10 and 3590 have
mean value of zero (i.e. pointing north), not 1800 (i.e.
pointing south) as would be calculated in linear
statistics. The statistical analysis is performed in two
steps. First, probability density function of single
orientation component is assessed. (Lanyon et al.,
1993; Cacas et al., 1995)

All the above rocks have undergone various degrees

of deformation with the adjacent migmatites-gneissquarzite complex. There have also been a lot of
migmatization and granitization and in some places
as a result of emplacement of pan African granite
plutons which marks the last of the Precambrian
activities to affect the Igarra area. The dominant
structural trend in the study area is approximately NS and this is defined by mineralogy, lithology, axial
planes and cleavages. The geological complexity of
the study area is therefore not in doubt. This probably
has been responsible for the existence of diverse rock
and mineral types, particularly industrial minerals
that are being exploited by several industries. For
example, the area has some of the largest deposit of
marble in Nigeria (Anifowose, 2008).

Simple Circular Statistics

Simple circular statistics include mean, variance and
standard deviation of the data set. If a unimodal
distribution is assumed, they can be promptly
obtained from the intermediate data. Parameters for
many probabilities and density functions can be
estimated from the simple quantity mean (), as first
order moment, represents mathematical expectation
of the N orientation values (i). Variance (Var) is
second order moment about the expectation mean.
(Nam, 2004)
=
(1)

Fracture Data Analyses

Fracture data can be analysed with the aid of various
tools. In the work of Nam (2004), three major
methods were
emphasized
viz: statistical,
geostatistical and spatial neuron methods.
Statistical Analyses
In this analysis, simple statistics are first carried out
by identifying statistical behaviours of the fracture
location, orientation and size. The most common
probability density functions for individual fracture
geometric properties of orientation are circular
statistics for fracture orientation and multifractal
geometry for fracture size

Var =

(2)

2.5
Circular trigonometric moments
To calculate circular statistics, the orientation is
considered as N vectors
) (unit radian). The
vectors are combined in the form of secondary
parameters (Cc, Sc and Rc). Cc and Sc equal to sum
of cosine and sine orientation values. Rc is length of
the resultant vector:
Cc =
(3)

Circular Statistics for Fracture Orientation

Fracture orientation data could be obtained from
many sources, especially from well bore images, core
and outcrops. Compare to other fracture properties,
intermediate orientation data are usually abundant
thus, reliable distributions can be targeted (Nam,
2004). Fracture orientation is represented as a single
value in 2D and as two components in 3D. In
previous works, fracture orientation data components
of dip and azimuth (dip directions) were treated
individually. In most cases, symmetrically unimodal
distributions were used, e.g. uniform, normal or VonMises Functions (Wen and Sinding-Larsen, 1996;
Willis-Richards, 1996; Jenseen et al., 1998; Anraku
et al., 2000, Nam, 2004). In a limited number of other
cases, investigators recognised fracture orientation
having more than one mode (Lanyon et al., 1993;
Cacas et al., 2002; Nam, 2004). However, such
representations were simplistic, correlations between

Sc =
(4)
0.5
Rc =
(5)
The second parameters are used to determine circular
mean direction ( c), circular variance (Var) and
circular standard deviation ():
(6)
c=

Varc

331

(7)
0.5

(8)

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2):330-338 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Scanline Survey
Scan line survey was the method adopted in taken
measurement of geometrical properties of fractures as
recommended by Priest and Hudson (1981) because
of its simplicity and flexibility. A planar rock face is
selected that is large relative to the size and spacing
of the discontinuities exposed. Intersections between
discontinuities and the rock produced linear traces,
which provide an essentially two-dimensional sample
of the rock structure. The orientation of a
discontinuity in space is described by the dip of the
line of steepest declination measured from horizontal,
and by the dip direction measured clockwise from
true north. Example: dip / dip direction (000/0000). at
Ekpeshi face 2 and the scanline stretched over 227
metres where data were collected. Face 1 was in
excess of 200 metres as well. The measuring tape was
pinned to the surface of the rocks in a linear form and
all discontinuities intersecting the scanlines were
measured using compass clinometers.

poles, planes and cut face. Figures 4-6 depict the

stability analyses of face 1 for plane failure using
daylight envelope and friction cone; for wedge failure
using intersection of planes; and toppling failure
respectively. Figures 7-9 depicts the stability analyses
of face 2 for plane failure using daylight envelope
and friction cone; for wedge failure using intersection
of planes; and toppling failure respectively.

Ekpeshi quarry faces 1

Joint sets of discontinuities were clearly mapped on
face 1 of the quarry. The longitude and latitude of the
face are E060 11.663 and N070 09 .635 respectively
while the cut face is 780/2460

=( /N/R)

Ekpeshi quarry face 2

There are two joint sets of discontinuities with very
close spacing observed. The longitude and latitude of
the locations are E06011.661 and N070 09.634
while the cut face is 760/1620

Table 2: Summary of orientation data for joint set 2

fracture on quarry face 1

Table 1: Summary of orientation data for joint set 1

fracture on quarry face 1
Direction
cosine
Sum

Arithmetic
Mean

(sin dip
dir.cos dip)

(cos dip
dir.cos dip)

(sin dip)

mi = 90.43

ni = 26.28

li = -31.45
-0.314536

0.903999

0.263554

-0.317

0.911

0.265

=( /N)
Vector Mean

N= 100; using equations 1 to 11: R (Resultant vector)

= 0.992; (Fishers constant) = 139;
(Mean
orientation) = 74/160

Direction
cosine
(sin dip dir.cos dip)
Sum

Computation of Average/Mean Orientation of

Planes Using Direction Cosines
With the y-axis directed horizontally to the north, the
x-axis horizontally to the east, and the z-axis
vertically upward, the Fisher mean pole and
dispersion constant can be estimated as follows
(Cheeney, 1983) and presented in Tables 1 to 4
The poles of the average plane of each fracture set
were computed using the general formulae:
l = sincos
(9)
m = coscos
(10)
n = sin
(11)
where l, m and n are the direction cosines of any
given dip vector 00/000.
= dip direction of any given dip vector
= dip angle of any given dip vector

Arithmetic
Mean

li = 45.41

(cos dip
dir.cos dip)

(sin dip)

mi = 5.84

ni = 16.32

0.926

0.119

0.333

0.933

0.119

0.335

=( /N)
Vector Mean
=( /N/R)

N= 49; using equations 1 to 11: R (Resultant vector)

= 0.992; (Fishers constant) = 127;
(Mean
orientation) = 72/262
Table 3: Summary of orientation data for joint set 1
fracture on quarry face 2
Direction cosine

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results
Tables 1 and 2 show the summary of orientation data
for joint sets 1 and 2 fractures respectively on
Ekpeshi quarry face 1 while Tables 3 and 4 show the
summary of orientation data for joint sets 1 and 2
fractures respectively on Ikpeshi quarry face 2.
Figure 2 depicts the contour plot of Ekpeshi quarry
while Figure 3 is the plot of quarry face 1 showing
332

(cos dip
dir.cos dip)

(sin dip)

mi = 81.04

ni = 22.42

Sum

(sin dip
dir.cos dip)
li = -27.54

Arithmetic Mean =( /N)

-0.309

0.910

0.251

Vector Mean =( /N/R)

-0.310

0.917

0.252

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2):330-338 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
N= 89; using equations 1 to 11: R (Resultant vector)
= 0.994; (Fishers constant) = 172; (Mean
orientation) = 75/161

intersect within this region, hence, face 1 of the

dolomite deposit is susceptible to wedge failure.
Toppling Failure Analyses of Dolomite Quarry
Face 1
In Figure 6, slip limit is added to the stereonet. The
dip angle (430) of the plane is the deference between
the pit slope angle (78 0) and the friction angle (350)
while the dip direction is equal to that of the face
(2460). From Figure 6, any pole that falls within pole
toppling region indicates a toppling risk. The critical
area representing pole toppling region is dotted with
star-like symbols. From visual estimation, there is no
pole within this region; hence toppling failure is
highly unlikely.

Table 4: Summary of orientation data for joint set 2

fracture on quarry face 2
Direction
cosine
(sin dip
dir.cos dip)
Sum

Arithmetic

li = 49.73

(cos dip
dir.cos dip)
mi = 7.65

(sin dip)
ni = 18.36

0.921

0.141

0.340

0.928

0.142

0.342

Mean =( /N)
Vector Mean

Plane Failure Analyses Dolomite Quarry Face 2

Figure 7 depicts that joint set 1 is susceptible to plane
failure. The crescent shaped zone formed by the
daylight envelope and the pole friction circle
therefore encloses the region of planar sliding. In
Figure 6, from visual estimation, 55% of joint set 2
poles are susceptible to planar sliding if other factors
favour it.

=( /N/R)

N= 54; using equations 1 to 11: R (Resultant vector)

= 0.992; (Fishers constant) = 124;
(Mean
orientation) = 70/261
DISCUSSION
Ekpeshi Dolomite Deposit
There are two identifiable joint sets in Figure 2. The
two are almost at right angle to each other thereby
making it difficult to see the two joints clearly on one
face. For instance, on face 1, the only conspicuous
joint set was set 1. Also on face 2, joint set 2 was
very conspicuous. Joint set 2 is closely spaced while
joint set 1 is averagely spaced (ISRM, 1989).

Wedge Failure Analyses of Dolomite Quarry Face

2
Figure 8 shows the critical area bounded by thick red
outline. Intersection of planes within this region
indicate wedge that is prone to failure. Planes 1 and 2
do not intersect within this region, hence face 2 of the
dolomite deposit is not susceptible to wedge failure.
The star like symbol indicates point of intersection
which is outside critical zone.

Plane Failure Analyses of Dolomite Quarry Face 1

Figure 4 shows that joint set 2 is susceptible to plane
failure. One of the conditions for plane failure to
occur is that the sliding plane must daylight. On the
stereonet, a daylight envelope is visible. A daylight
envelope allows to test for kinematics (i.e. a rock slab
must have somewhere to slide into-free space). Any
pole falling within this envelope is kinematically free
to slide if frictionally unstable. The pole friction cone
of plunge 900 and angle 350 is roughly estimated to
represent friction angle of limestone. Any pole that
fall outside this cone represents a plane which could
slide if kinematically possible. The crescent shaped
zone formed by the daylight envelope and the pole
friction circle therefore encloses the region of planar
sliding. Any poles in this region represent planes
which can slide. In Figure 4, from visual estimation,
70% of joint set 2 poles are susceptible to planar
sliding if other factors favour it.

Toppling Failure Analyses of Dolomite Quarry

Face 2
In Figure 9, slip limit is added to the stereonet. The
dip angle (410) of the plane is the deference between
the pit slope angle (76 0) and the friction angle (350)
while the dip direction is equal to that of the face
(1620). The critical area representing pole toppling
region is dotted with star-like symbols. In Figure 9,
from visual estimation, there is no pole within this
region; hence toppling failure is highly unlikely.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Joint set 2 on face 1 of Ekpeshi dolomite quarry is a
critical zone for plane failure. From the analysis, face
1 of the quarry also faces the risk of wedge failure
while toppling failure is not a threat on this face. Face
2 of the dolomite deposit is partly under the threat of
plane failure. There is no possibility of wedge failure
on this face. Also there is no threat of toppling failure
on the dolomite face 2. There could be several
reasons why slope is allowed to yield to planar
sliding as in the case of quarry face 1: it could be that
the fracture orientation survey was not carried out or
to allow the failure is more economical than to
prevent it, perhaps it increase the volume of blasts,

Wedge Failure Analyses of Dolomite Quarry Face

1
The angle of plane friction cone is 550. The friction
angle of 550 of the dolomite deposit entered into the
add cone of the stereonet. In Figure 5, the critical area
is bounded by thick yellow outline and any
intersection of planes within this region indicates
wedge that is prone to failure. Planes 1 and 2
333

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2):330-338 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
reduce drill holes and costs of explosive which in
turn reduced cost of production. These are
possibilities and do not represent the opinion of the
management of the quarry. However safety of
employee and equipment should take precedence.
The study area had no tension crack which to large
extent reduces the possibility of severe slope failure
according to Olaleye and Jegede (2006). However,
the toe of slope at the quarry was flooded because of
poor quarry design and inadequate flood control.

Environmental Engineering, Royal Institute of

Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. pp 1-2
Hoek, E., and Bray, J.W. (1981): Rock Slope
Engineering (3rd edition): The Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy, London. 358 p
ISRM (1981): Rock characterization, testing and
monitoring. ISRM Suggested Methods. Brown, E.T.
(Ed.). Pergamon Press. 211p
Jenseen, C.L., Lee, S.H., Milliken, W.J., Kamath, J.,
Narr, W., Wu, H. And Davies, J.P. (1998): Field
Simulation of naturally fractured reservoirs using
effective permeabilities derived from realistic
characterisation. SPE48999, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Louisiana, USA, Sep. 27-30

The joint sets in face 2 of the dolomite deposit are

very closely spaced. Although, from kinematic
analysis point of view, it is not prone to wedge and
toppling failures, there is a point of caution on face 2,
the joint spacing is very close according to ISRM
(1981) which can aggravate toppling on the face.
However, the orientation of the cut face takes care of
this situation. This simply shows that a failure prone
face can be made stable with proper orientation of cut
face and other geological factors.

Lanyon, G.W., Batchelor, A.S and Ledingham, P.

(1993): Result from a discrete fracture Network
model of a hot dry Rock System. Proceedings of 18th
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering
Stanford University, Stanford California, USA, Jan.
26-28

Kinematic analyses are only suggestive, in the course

of future research it is recommended that the analysis
should incorporate forces that cause sliding. The
analysis can be corroborated with limit equilibrium
and advance numerical techniques.

Nam H. T., (2004): Characterization and modelling

of naturally fractured reservoirs, unpublished PhD
thesis, submitted to School of Petroleum Engineering,
University of New South Wales, and Sydney
Australia

REFERENCES
Anifowose A.Y.B., Odeyemi I.B. and Bamisaye C.A.
(2008): Establishing a solid mineral
database for
a part of South-western Nigeria Geospatial World
(www.gisdevelopment.net) p 1

Odeyemi, I.B (1988): Lithosgraphic and structural

relationships
off
the
upper
Precambrian
metasediments in Igarra area, Western Nigeria. In:
P.O. Oluyede, W.C. Mbonu, A.E. Ogezi, I.G.
Egbuniwe, A.C. Ajibade and A.C. Umeji (eds).
Precambrian Geology of Nigeria. Geology Survey of
Nigeria, Kaduna, pp. 41-58

Anraku, T.,Namikawa, T., Herring, T., Jenkins, I.,

Price, N. and Trythall,R.(2000): Stochastic fracture
modelling of the Yufutsu field SPE59400, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Asia Pacific conference on
Integrated Modelling for Asset Management,
Yokohama, Japan, Apr. 25-26

Olaleye, B.M., and Jegede G. (2006): Investigation of

the stability of Alaguntan limestone quarry face,
South Western Nigeria. Mineral Wealth Journal,
Greece, No 141, p 9-14.

Cacas, M.C., Daniel, J.M. and Letouzey, J. (2001):

Nested geological modelling of naturally fractured
reservoirs, Petroleum Geosciences, 7, pp S43-S52

Wen, R and Sinding-Larsen, R. (1996): Stochastic

modelling and simulation of small faults by marked
point processes and kriging. In: Baafi, E.Y. and
Schofield, N.A. (eds), Geostatistics Wollongong.
Australia, pp.398-414

Cheeney, R. F. (1983): Statistical methods in geology

for field and laboratory decisions, Allen and Unwin
Ltd. London, UK. 245 p.
Fisher N.I. (1993): Statistical analysis of circular
data. Cambridge University Press Cambridge. 295 p

Willis-Richards, J. (1996): Progress toward a

stochastic rock mechanics model of engineered
geothermal systems. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 101(B80), pp 17481-17496

Flavio L. (2001): Geo, Mechanics and Transmissivity

of Rock Fracture PhD Thesis, Division of
Engineering Geology, Department of Civil and

334

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2):330-338 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
APPENDIX
N

JOINT SET 1

Fisher
Concentrations
% of total per 1.0 % area
0.00 ~ 5.00 %
5.00 ~ 10.00 %
10.00 ~ 15.00 %
15.00 ~ 20.00 %
20.00 ~ 25.00 %
25.00 ~ 30.00 %
30.00 ~ 35.00 %
35.00 ~ 40.00 %
40.00 ~ 45.00 %
45.00 ~ 50.00 %

JOINT SET 2
E

No Bias Correction
Max. Conc. = 49.4447%

Equal Angle
Lower Hemisphere
150 Poles
150 Entries

Figure 2: Contour plot of Ekpeshi quarry

N
JOINT SET 1
Poles

PLANE 2

2m
1

2m

JOINT SET 2
E

1m

Equal Angle
Lower Hemisphere
150 Poles
150 Entries

Figure 3: Plot of quarry face 1 showing poles, planes and cut face

335

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2):330-338 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
N
SET 2 PLANE

Number of Poles

PLANE FAILURE ZONE CRESCENT

1m

1 pole
2 to 3 poles

DAYLIGHT ENVELOPE

4 to 5 poles
6 to 7 poles

1:PIT SLOPE

2m
1:PIT SLOPE
1m

SET 1 PLANE
POLE FRICTION CONE

8 to 9 poles
10 to 11 poles

2m

12 to 13 poles
14 to 15 poles

Equal Angle
Lower Hemisphere
150 Poles
150 Entries

Figure 4: Stability analyses of quarry face 1 for plane failure using daylight envelope and
friction cone

N
Orientations
ID

Dip / Direction

1m
1

1:PIT SLOPE

2m
1:PIT SLOPE
1m

2m

76 / 248

75 / 168

75 / 168

70 / 270

70 / 270

PLANE FRICTION CONE(35 degrees)

Equal Angle
Lower Hemisphere
150 Poles
150 Entries

POINT OF INTERSECTION
S

Figure 5: Stability analyses of quarry face 1 for wedge failure using intersection of planes

336

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2):330-338 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
N
Number of Poles

1m

1 pole
2 to 3 poles
4 to 5 poles
6 to 7 poles

1:PIT SLOPE

8 to 9 poles
10 to 11 poles

2:SLIP LIMIT
W

2m
1:PIT SLOPE
1m
2: SLIP LIMIT

2m

12 to 13 poles
14 to 15 poles

POLE TOPPLING REGION

Equal Angle
Lower Hemisphere
150 Poles
150 Entries

Figure 6: Toppling failure analyses of quarry face 1

N
Number of Poles

CRESCENT OF PLANAR SLIDING ZONE

1mSLOPE
1:PIT

DAYLIGHT ENVELOPE

1 pole
2 to 3 poles
4 to 5 poles

POLE FRICTION CONE

6 to 7 poles
8 to 9 poles
10 to 11 poles

2m

2m

12 to 13 poles
14 to 15 poles

1:PIT SLOPE
1m

16 to 17 poles

Equal Angle
Lower Hemisphere
150 Poles
150 Entries

S
FREEDOM DOLOMITE QUARRY FACE 2 IKPESHI

Figure 7: Stability analyses of quarry face 2 for plane failure using daylight envelope and
friction cone

337

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(2):330-338 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
N
Orientations
ID

Dip / Direction

1m SLOPE
1:PIT
1

2m

2m

76 / 162

75 / 168

75 / 168

70 / 268

70 / 268

1:PIT SLOPE
1m
PLANE FRICTION CONE(35degrees)

Equal Angle
Lower Hemisphere
150 Poles
150 Entries

POINT OF INTERSECTION OF TW O WEIGHTED MEAN PLANE

S

Figure 8: Stability analyses of quarry face 2 for wedge failure using intersection of planes

N
Number of Poles

1m SLOPE
1:PIT

1 pole
2 to 3 poles
4 to 5 poles
6 to 7 poles

2:SLIP LIMIT

8 to 9 poles
10 to 11 poles

2m

2m

12 to 13 poles
14 to 15 poles

1:PIT SLOPE
1m

16 to 17 poles

2:SLIP LIMIT

POLE TOPPLING REGION

S

Figure 9: Toppling failure analyses of quarry face 2

338

Equal Angle
Lower Hemisphere
150 Poles
150 Entries